On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:41:23AM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 at 11:09:08 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I was thinking it might be better to go to a "wildcard" epoch:
> >
> > Depends: X (>= *:1.8)
> >
> > would mean
> >
> > "For this comparison, ignore the epoch, and make sure that the version
> > is at least 1.8 or above".
>
> This would work for the "oops, that was meant to go to experimental"
> case where +really also gets used, but would do the wrong thing for the
> original purpose of epochs, which is dealing with upstream version
> numbering that doesn't match dpkg semantics.
Which would mean that in that case, the dependency should not be
declared as "X (>= *:1.8)", but instead as "X (>= 1:1.8)".
(We might at some point discover that we want to update the whole scheme
so it also supports "X (>= [1-*]:1.8)" to cover a combination of the two
cases that you and I just described, but really?)
--
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?
-- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
Hacklab
